Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Division of Nephrology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Dec 1;180(12):1655-1663. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5028.
There are concerns with translating results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) into clinical practice because the standardized protocol used to measure blood pressure (BP) may not be consistently applied in routine clinical practice.
To evaluate the concordance between BPs obtained in routine clinical practice and those obtained using the SPRINT protocol and whether concordance varied by target trial BP.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational prognostic study linking outpatient vital sign information from electronic health records (EHRs) with data from 49 of the 102 SPRINT sites was conducted from November 8, 2010, to August 20, 2015, among 3074 adults 50 years or older with hypertension without diabetes or a history of stroke. Statistical analysis was performed from May 21, 2019, to March 20, 2020.
Blood pressures measured in routine clinical practice and SPRINT.
Participant-level EHR data was obtained for 3074 participants (2482 men [80.7%]; mean [SD] age, 68.5 [9.1] years) with 3 or more outpatient and trial BP measurements. In the period from the 6-month study visit to the end of the study intervention, the mean systolic BP (SBP) in the intensive treatment group from outpatient BP recorded in the EHR was 7.3 mm Hg higher (95% CI, 7.0-7.6 mm Hg) than BP measured at trial visits; the mean difference between BP recorded in the outpatient EHR and trial SBP was smaller for participants in the standard treatment group (4.6 mm Hg [95% CI, 4.4-4.9 mm Hg]). Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated low agreement between outpatient BP recorded in the EHR and trial BP, with wide agreement intervals ranging from approximately -30 mm Hg to 45 mm Hg in both treatment groups. In addition, the difference between BP recorded in the EHR and trial BP varied widely by site.
Outpatient BPs measured in routine clinical practice were generally higher than BP measurements taken in SPRINT, with greater mean SBP differences apparent in the intensive treatment group. There was a consistent high degree of heterogeneity between the BPs recorded in the EHR and trial BPs, with significant variability over time, between and within the participants, and across clinic sites. These results highlight the importance of proper BP measurement technique and an inability to apply 1 common correction factor (ie, approximately 10 mm Hg) to approximate research-quality BP estimates when BP is not measured appropriately in routine clinical practice.
SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.
将 Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial(SPRINT)的研究结果转化为临床实践存在一定的困难,因为在常规临床实践中可能无法始终如一地应用用于测量血压(BP)的标准化方案。
评估常规临床实践中获得的血压(BP)与 SPRINT 方案中获得的血压之间的一致性,以及一致性是否因目标试验 BP 而有所不同。
设计、设置和参与者:这是一项观察性预后研究,将来自电子健康记录(EHR)的门诊生命体征信息与来自 SPRINT 中的 49 个站点中的 49 个站点的数据进行了链接,该研究于 2010 年 11 月 8 日至 2015 年 8 月 20 日期间在 3074 名 50 岁及以上的高血压但无糖尿病或中风病史的成年人中进行。统计分析于 2019 年 5 月 21 日至 2020 年 3 月 20 日进行。
常规临床实践和 SPRINT 中测量的血压。
对 3074 名参与者(2482 名男性[80.7%];平均[SD]年龄为 68.5[9.1]岁)进行了 EHR 参与者水平数据的分析,这些参与者的门诊和试验 BP 测量值超过 3 次。在从研究访问的 6 个月到研究干预结束的时间段内,EHR 记录的强化治疗组门诊 BP 的平均收缩压(SBP)比试验访视时测量的 BP 高 7.3mmHg(95%CI,7.0-7.6mmHg);标准治疗组中 EHR 记录的 BP 与试验 SBP 之间的平均差异较小(4.6mmHg[95%CI,4.4-4.9mmHg])。Bland-Altman 分析表明,EHR 记录的门诊 BP 与试验 BP 的一致性较差,两组的一致性区间均较宽,约为-30mmHg 至 45mmHg。此外,EHR 记录的 BP 与试验 BP 之间的差异在不同地点之间存在很大差异。
常规临床实践中测量的门诊 BP 通常高于 SPRINT 中的 BP 测量值,强化治疗组的平均 SBP 差异更为明显。EHR 记录的 BP 与试验 BP 之间存在一致的高度异质性,随着时间的推移、参与者之间以及参与者内部以及诊所之间均存在显著的变异性。这些结果突出表明,在常规临床实践中未正确测量 BP 时,正确的 BP 测量技术和无法应用 1 个通用校正因子(即约 10mmHg)来估计研究质量的 BP 估计值的重要性。
SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT01206062。